Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<02d201c0d7c3$12a01710$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	<cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<2C08D4EECBDED41184BB00D0B747334202FB437B AT exchanger DOT cacheflow DOT com> <20010508090218 DOT A22608 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Status on issue with PATH ignoring scripts with same name as exes in 1.3.1?
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 23:29:29 +1000
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	08 May 2001 13:24:45.0184 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F4A6000:01C0D7C2]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Status on issue with PATH ignoring scripts with same name
as exes in 1.3.1?


> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:17:47PM -0700, Karr, David wrote:
> >I haven't reexamined this issue in several days.  I have "wrapper"
scripts
> >with the same name as exes later in the path.  This worked fine in
1.1.8,
> >but now that I'm trying to use 1.3.1, it doesn't work anymore.  When
the
> >shell does a PATH search, it ignores the script and just uses the
exe.  I'm
> >just looking for some information on this.  I can downgrade my
cygwin1.dll
> >to 1.1.8 for now.
>
> Corinna's recent bash upgrade may fix this.
>
> cgf
>

I probably shouldn't ask.... my english parser is confused: wheres the
direct question above?

Rob

- Raw text -